On Kuhl: Breast cancer case, regarding a drug salesman being in the room when a mastectomy patient was undergoing examination–the patient sued the drug company and Kuhl ruled for the drug company. It’s not clear to me what the legal question of the case would have been exactly, but that’s what matters. And Boxer trying to make this a breast cancer issue and calling Kuhl “hostile to women” is just cheap posturing. This makes Kuhl “Very extremist, very controversial”?
What’s all this talk about the “mainstream” judges? I loved how earlier Reid and Durbin were trying to paint the Federalist Society as some sort of “extremist” and “secret handshake” kind of group. Given the popularity of the Society, its diverse membership (in terms of people and ideology), and its straightforward values (which, emphatically, are in the cultural mainstream, if you poll Americans), calling it extremist is, well, extreme.
Humorously, the groups that Boxer names as being against Kuhl really are extreme, w/r/t mainstream American values: university women, lesbian groups, planned parenthood, FOE, Sierra Club, etc.
BTW, as pointed out, the63 nominees blocked under Clinton number is BS. 45 were still in the process at the end of his term, and he pulled 18 (I may be off by one or two here, but it’s close). None were filibustered. And blocked has no meaning, especially if it’s being used to describe nominees who are pulled by the President.
Also, the Bob Jones thing is a red herring; do you want the IRS evaluating non-profit organization’s religious beliefs? Plus, she was a junior staffer in the OSG. Hold everyone to that sort of standard on any ideology, and we would have no judges.
Jobs: consent to bring up the minimum wage, again. Simple economics. Insane.